Register here - as a registered user you get more features and fewer ads.
As author of the "controversial" video, I must share with all viewers that criticism, particularly from academic institutionalists, especially archaeologists, is the rule, not the exception. I have respect for the University of Leicester and Clive Ruggles. And I don't expect my 2.5 minute introductory video, shrunken to conform with the web's bandwidth limitations, to change the world or win academic converts on its own merits. It's designed to whet their interest, not to attract knee-jerk dismissals. But I would invite Alun Salt, the critic from Leicester's School of Archaeology and Ancient History, to see the entire one hour video plus the studio debate regarding the findings, or better yet, come to America and witness the events in person before condemning these findings as worthless fantasy. I assure you the evidence is convincing. Experts I have interviewed since the shooting in 1985 have validated these unique phenomena. Books have been and continue to be published about these rock writings and alignments. And while I cannot say with certainty they are Celtic Ogham or Libyan or old Arabic (and no one expects you to certify them as such from the downsized QuickTime sampler you saw) there is plenty of detailed documentation associated with the highlighted inscriptions and many others, some of which can be gleaned from the full hour presentation.
There is inevitably strong resistance from guardians of the status quo. In America, young by European standards, we are indoctrinated from grade school with the lesson that "in 1492, Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue". Anyone who suggests a written historical record dating back before Columbus is generally regarded as a nut case. Well, time and evidence will tell. But the evidence needs to be examined in an open and unbiased manner. Experts from afar who have no intention of even examining evidence that could rock their world find it most convenient to dismiss it with scorn. That is sad. Shouldn't we have basic intellectual curiosity? Aren't we open to new ideas while preserving the historical record? And it takes years to change perspectives. Isn't this the struggle discovery manifests. I welcome challenge, but I will not accept shallow dismissiveness. What you may have seen in my video is by no means everything. Those who instinctively are prone to reject new ideas owe it to themselves to see the inscriptions, to digest the epigraphic work, and to consider the rarity of the equinox alignment in context. Consider the parallax. Consider 35 feet from cave mouth to rock knob. These are not coincidental or superficial markings. These are worthy of serious investigation.
Might I suggest, as a start, reading "Ancient Celtic America" by William McGlone and Phillip Leonard, ISBN 0-914330-90-X Let's not be so quick to say NO WAY.
Something is not right. This message is just to keep things from messing up down the road